Carbon dating is false!

[raid517]

Rats... I'm bored, lets play....

Creationists claim carbon dating is false:

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html

http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/5/5/7/1

Discuss...

What's your view? Does this prove Creationism is real or not?

GJ

[vincent]

creationism will never be real.

[raid517]

Well in relation to the above, why would that be rigput? Doesn't this 'prove' that there are big problems with the scientific perspective?

GJ

[vincent]

I have had heard claims of Carbon dating and its relevency to determining the age of dinosuars and other such fossil records to be false, but one thing i still wanna know if this is false (the dinosaurs not being millions of years ago) then why does science still claim them to be as old as they are said to be? :huh:

[Whiffle]

That first page is just loony, with no basis in reality.

It is correct in saying that carbon dating doesn't work for dinosaurs. For anyone in the geology/archaeology fields, its obvious.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/carbon-14.htm

Carbon-14 dating is a way of determining the age of certain archeological artifacts of a biological origin up to about 50,000 years old. It is used in dating things such as bone, cloth, wood and plant fibers that were created in the relatively recent past by human activities.

My point is that determination of the age of the dinosaurs has nothing to do with carbon dating, as it simply isn't the correct tool to find out how long ago they lived. Two things are used. First, relative ages of bones are determined by how they are layered. Younger stuff is on top, older on the bottom. They can determine ages of dinosaur bones in years by using potassium/argon dating, which is explained better than i can here ---> http://www.caspercollege.edu/tate/faq_24.htm

I may get around to looking at the second article later...

[raid517]

Cr*p.... I was kind of hoping a few creationists would turn up and we could have some fun.

Anyway it seems Whiffle has ended this topic early.

With regard to the first page, Wiffle is right - this stuff has been answered many times, but creationists don't like answers nearly as much as asking those nagging questions.

Let's look at some of the claims you creationist sorts have commonly made about carbon dating....

Carbon-14 dating gives unreliable results.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011.html

Carbon dating is based on the atmospheric C-14/C-12 ratio, but that ratio varies. Thus the carbon dating method is not valid.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_1.html

Widely different radiocarbon dates are obtained from the same frozenmammoths. Different parts of the Vollosovitch mammoth date to 29,500 and

44,000 years before present (BP). One part of Dima, a frozen baby mammoth, was 40,000, another part 26,000, and wood immediately around it was 9-10,000 BP. Two parts of the Fairbanks Creek mammoth date to 15,380 and 21,300 BP.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_2.html

Living snails were carbon-14 dated at 2,300 and 27,000 years old, showing that the dating method is invalid.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_3.html

A freshly killed seal was carbon-14 dated at 1300 years old.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_4.html

A piece of wood was fossilized in the Hawkesbury Sandstone, Australia, which most geologists date to the middle Triassic, about 225 to 230 million

years ago. The wood was dated by Geochron (a commercial dating laboratory) using the carbon-14 method. Geochron determined its age to be only 33,720 +/- 430 years before present. Contamination by recent microbes or fungi cannot explain the discrepant age.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_5.html

Coal and oil are supposedly millions of years old. Effectively all of the carbon-14 in a sample would have decayed in that time. But carbon-14 still

exists in coal, implying an age of only about 50,000 years.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_6.html

This last page also links to "Carbon-14 in Coal Deposits"

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c14.html

Re your second page, it's more about recognizing changes in past carbon cycles. Radiocarbon is still pretty good out to 50,000 years, having been

calibrated by numerous other means.

Here's one article on this:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/303/5655/202

Science 9 January 2004:

Vol. 303. no. 5655, pp. 202 - 207

DOI: 10.1126/science.1090300

14C Activity and Global Carbon Cycle Changes over the Past 50,000 Years

K. Hughen,1* S. Lehman,3 J. Southon,4 J. Overpeck,5,6 O. Marchal,2 C.

Herring,1 J. Turnbull3

A series of 14C measurements in Ocean Drilling Program cores from the tropical Cariaco Basin, which have been correlated to the annual-layer

counted chronology for the Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2 (GISP2) ice core, provides a high-resolution calibration of the radiocarbon time scale back

to 50,000 years before the present. Independent radiometric dating of events correlated to GISP2 suggests that the calibration is accurate. Reconstructed 14C activities varied substantially during the last glacial period, including sharp peaks synchronous with the Laschamp and Mono Lake

geomagnetic field intensity minimal and cosmogenic nuclide peaks in ice cores and marine sediments. Simulations with a geochemical box model

suggest that much of the variability can be explained by geomagnetically modulated changes in 14C production rate together with plausible changes in deep-ocean ventilation and the global carbon cycle during glaciation.

And now for your further viewing pleasure, some sources:

1 Department of Marine Chemistry and Geochemistry, Woods Hole Oceanographic

Institution (WHOI), Woods Hole, MA 02543, USA.

2 Department of Geology and Geophysics, Woods Hole Oceanographic

Institution (WHOI), Woods Hole, MA 02543, USA.

3 Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, University of Colorado, Boulder,

CO 80309, USA.

4 Department of Earth System Science, University of California, Irvine, CA

92697, USA.

5 Department of Geosciences, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA.

6 Institute for the Study of Planet Earth, University of Arizona, Tucson,

AZ 85721, USA.

The interesting thing is that surely these guys must know how much BS this really is? Why do they persist in misrepresenting science in this way, if they know it is utter hogwash? Why do they want to ensnare the uninformed in this way, by feeing the layman with nonsense that sounds just convincing enough to sway him away from what we all surely know is real? Isn't it clear that these people really only interested in maintaining their power, their influence and their wealth?

Don't let these religious nuts pull the wool over your eyes. They know the truth. The problem is they just don't want you to know it.

GJ

Edited December 9, 2005 by raid517

[Whiffle]

a) Whoops. The sad part is that anybody can make an angelfire page, so when I saw that I already was thinking ... "here we go again..."

b) I'm Catholic. If you want to know what the Catholic church thinks about anything, pick up a copy of the Catechism Amazon , and it will explain every stance the Catholic church has on anything.

c) The Catholic Church isn't hiding anything about this. If you want to know the how and why of what we believe, its in the book described above. In other words, we aren't (as a whole), trying to fool anyone. As with anything, there are always going to be a few uninformed nutballs out there like the one that made that angelfire page, and 30 seconds of google searching will be able to disprove them beyond a doubt, which is what I did in my first post (although having some background in geology helped me with that).

d) I really don't give a rats behind what anyone else believes. Futhermore, I have done little to no reading about anything to do with this argument because I find that the whole thing is rather silly (who cares where we came from? We're here now, and thats all that matters to me at this point) so I'm probably going to stay out of it after this post.

e) Some people argue that the theories of religions (aka creationism, intelligent design, etc), do actually fit quite well with science. I don't remember the specifics of it but it is a very interesting argument if you can find it.

f) I find it disturbing and a tad bit sad that you lump all of "us" into this "creationist" category. Generalizations are bad..mmmmmkaaay. Generalizations about groups of people are usually wrong, and therefore do no good. I guarantee that within this gigantic, all inclusive "creationist" category, you will find plenty of people that are very misinformd about both the science side and the religion side, and plenty of people that will be able to give you an excellent argument about the strengths and weaknesses of both sides.

[neowin_hipster]

Carbon has too short of a half-life for **** like dinosaurs. We're talking a half life measure in thousands of years... not millions. Uranium+Lead difference is a far more suitable method.

But geological is quite a reliable method. Ever heard of pangea? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangaea

It's something up here in canada we all learn about fairly young and then again in high school. Once upon a time all continents were stuck together (Ever wonder why south america and africa seem to "fit" together). We can trace it back all the way from that.

Not to mention that everything from chemists to biologists to geologists to cosmologists have so much evidence that the earth is older than 10,000 years. Name a field from psychology to physics and they will tell you how they know the earth is older than 10,000 years and that people evolved from other organisms.

If we've "misinterpreted" what we're seeing and its all not possible then none of our technology is possible. None of it!

[raid517]

a) Whoops. The sad part is that anybody can make an angelfire page, so when I saw that I already was thinking ... "here we go again..."

b) I'm Catholic. If you want to know what the Catholic church thinks about anything, pick up a copy of the Catechism Amazon , and it will explain every stance the Catholic church has on anything.

c) The Catholic Church isn't hiding anything about this. If you want to know the how and why of what we believe, its in the book described above. In other words, we aren't (as a whole), trying to fool anyone. As with anything, there are always going to be a few uninformed nutballs out there like the one that made that angelfire page, and 30 seconds of Google searching will be able to disprove them beyond a doubt, which is what I did in my first post (although having some background in geology helped me with that).

d) I really don't give a rats behind what anyone else believes. Furthermore, I have done little to no reading about anything to do with this argument because I find that the whole thing is rather silly (who cares where we came from? We're here now, and thats all that matters to me at this point) so I'm probably going to stay out of it after this post.

e) Some people argue that the theories of religions (aka creationism, intelligent design, etc), do actually fit quite well with science. I don't remember the specifics of it but it is a very interesting argument if you can find it.

f) I find it disturbing and a tad bit sad that you lump all of "us" into this "creationist" category. Generalisations are bad..mmmmmkaaay. Generalisations about groups of people are usually wrong, and therefore do no good. I guarantee that within this gigantic, all inclusive "creationist" category, you will find plenty of people that are very misinformed about both the science side and the religion side, and plenty of people that will be able to give you an excellent argument about the strengths and weaknesses of both sides.

a) Yes, but it is curious how such things are able to convince an awful of of very gullible people. Like I said, surely the people printing this nonsense must know the truth? And if they do, why don't they want anyone else to know it?

b) I certainly didn't intend to offer anyone an opportunity to promote their brand of religion over any others. That is the typical Christian way - "our way is right - and all other ways are inferior!"

c) as above.

d) Confirms b) you 'don't care what other people believe (don't give a rat's fart)'. As for 'caring about where we came from.' I think you will find that a great many people do care where we came from - and that a very large part of the entire pursuit of science is devoted to this specific topic.

e) Intelligent design is utter tosh - and these people you refer to who say 'religion and science can coexist together' are in large part often nothing more than cranks.

f) You lumped yourself in that category. I never specifically mentioned you or anyone. If you are offended by my distaste for creationists and their often empty headed propaganda, then clearly this can only be because you personally have identified yourself as a creationist.

Again, this has nothing at all to do with me.

GJ

[Whiffle]

a) Yes, but it is curious how such things are able to convince an awful of of very gullible people. Like I said, surely the people printing this nonsense must know the truth? And if they do, why don't they want anyone else to know it?

b) I certainly didn't intend to offer anyone an opportunity to promote their brand of religion over any others. That is the typical Christian way - "our way is right - and all other ways are inferior!"

c) as above.

d) Confirms b) you 'don't care what other people believe (don't give a rat's fart)'. As for 'caring about where we came from.' I think you will find that a great many people do care where we came from - and that a very large part of the entire pursuit of science is devoted to this specific topic.

e) Intelligent design is utter tosh - and these people you refer to who say 'religion and science can coexist together' are in large part often nothing more than cranks.

f) You lumped yourself in that category. I never specifically mentioned you or anyone. If you are offended by my distaste for creationists and their often empty headed propaganda, then clearly this can only be because you personally have identified yourself as a creationist.

Again, this has nothing at all to do with me.

GJ

a) Well, I certainly don't believe everything I read on the internet (or anywhere else for that matter), and I would hope that other people would exercise the same thing. Also, consider the possibility that these people truely do believe what they are saying, and aren't trying to decieve anybody. There ARE people like that in the world, who are perfectly willing to blindly accept something and promote it to others, or are just ininformed about the nature of what they are talking about, like the person who made that carbon 14 page. On the other hand. If they are trying to decieve people, then they are doing a truely crappy job.

b) I never said that we (as in Christians, Catholics etc) are right or anything, or that other people's thinking is inferior, nor was I trying to promote my religion. You make it sound as if we're trying to trick people or something (visions of secret midnight meetings at the local church come to mind). My goal in saying that was to show that we aren't trying to decieve anyone, that all of the beliefs, ideas etc are out in the open for anyone to see, in a take it or leave it fashion, which is entirely contrary to what you have said. I won't deny though that there are others out there who are actively trying to convert people. This was prompted by this statement that you made:

Don't let these religious nuts pull the wool over your eyes. They know the truth. The problem is they just don't want you to know it.

and this:

The interesting thing is that surely these guys must know how much BS this really is? Why do they persist in misrepresenting science in this way, if they know it is utter hogwash? Why do they want to ensnare the uninformed in this way, by feeing the layman with nonsense that sounds just convincing enough to sway him away from what we all surely know is real? Isn't it clear that these people really only interested in maintaining their power, their influence and their wealth?

If their goal is maintaining power, influence and wealth, why is it on a free angelfire page?

d) I'm sure other people do care, I was just illustrating that I havn't researched the arguments of either side at all, and have no incentive to do so. In my high school, we spent about a day on Darwins theory, didn't even mention the Bible, and nobody complained. Keep in mind, this was a public school in a heavily conservative state, in a conservative area of that state, also known as the "Bible Belt" to some (even though it is a complete misnomer). Why it can't be that way everywhere is beyond me, especially for (in my view) such a trivial issue.

e) Can you prove any of this? Sounds to me like you're in the same category you put people like me in "our way is right - and all other ways are inferior!" The only information that you have provided to support your claims to date is information counteracting these nuts who are trying to kill off carbon dating, which doesn't prove anything you've said about creationism. I don't know if you're trying to be that way, but that is how you come across.

f) My point was that lumping people together like that gets you nowhere, whether I'm in the category or not.

This has everything to do with you. Everything I have said is in direct response to something you have posted in this thread, not to mention that you created this thread in the first place.

[raid517]

Well I have exposed to Catholicism - and if you are trying to paint it as a 'a take it or leave it' kind of religion' then you are both terribly misguided and sadly mistaken. The Catholic faith has a history of terrible oppression and intolerance towards many things in human history, not just scientific ideas. Sure they may be wearing a new set of clothes now - but they still mix this in with the same kind of vagueness and all the same old half informed 'maybes' and 'what ifs' and misinterpretations and so on. The only reason the Catholic Church (just like all the other branches of Christianity) is adopting a more 'modern' outlook and has become more open to scientific (or more often still extremely pseudo scientific) ideas, is because in the midst of the information age, it is become harder and harder to convince an increasingly informed public that the viewpoint they have promoted for so long is still valid. So they tout these 'new' ideas in the hope that they can still sound just credible enough to continue ensnare new generations devotees.

And they are not unsuccessful in their tactics at all. With as much as 62% of all Americans claiming to believe in God and with most of that country lurching increasingly closer to a true state of religious fundamentalism, it seems clear that this disinformation campaign has proved highly successful. There are also many instances where senior Church leaders have been exposed to the answers given above - yet still they have chosen to ignore them and to propagate these seeming 'nagging' questions among their followers. When you know there is an answer (As in the 50,000~ year limit to the usefulness of carbon dating) why (unless you really did have an agenda) would you deliberately seek to propagate a myth? The angelfire page was simply repeating many things found on many much larger 'creationist' type sites. It was given as a demonstration of how apparently simple it is to pull the wool over people's eyes, when all you give them is questions without supplying the answers.

You obviously see your own brand of religion in a very positive (perhaps rose tinted) light, as even your explanation of your original intentions still has a very 'evangelical' feel to it. You speak of how much more 'open' and accepting and tolerant' Catholicism is when compared to other branches of Christianity and paint it as something that is consequentially very much more appealing than all the other supposedly less desirable branches. This is regardless of whether it is any more accurate than any of these other branches or not. But as I said, I have had close up exposure to the Catholic Church - and I know from personal experience that if you scratch a little beneath the surface, you will quickly find the same levels of intolerance and ignorance that you find in almost every other branch of Christianity.

I'm sure other people do care, I was just illustrating that I haven't researched the arguments of either side at all, and have no incentive to do so. In my high school, we spent about a day on Darwin's theory, didn't even mention the Bible, and nobody complained. Keep in mind, this was a public school in a heavily conservative state, in a conservative area of that state, also known as the "Bible Belt" to some (even though it is a complete misnomer). Why it can't be that way everywhere is beyond me, especially for (in my view) such a trivial issue.

That sounds like nothing short of a half thought out argument for the preservation of ignorance. Just because your education was poor and you do not know or understand certain things, does not mean that they are not important or valid. Why we are here and where we came from is I think one of the biggest questions that human beings can ask. The problem with religion is (like you) it tells you that you should not ask, you should not be curious, because it already has all the answers. The old adage about religion being the opiate of the people seems as valid in this instance as ever - because only an opiate like this would stop you caring about where we all came from and what our ultimate fate might be. You have your 'comfort' in your religion - and that it seems is more than enough for you.

e) Can you prove any of this? Sounds to me like you're in the same category you put people like me in "our way is right - and all other ways are inferior!" The only information that you have provided to support your claims to date is information counteracting these nuts who are trying to kill off carbon dating, which doesn't prove anything you've said about creationism. I don't know if you're trying to be that way, but that is how you come across.

We have had many debates on intelligent design on these forums in the past (one example of which can be found here if you can find sufficient interest to 'care' enough to read it) and yes I think it is possible to demonstrate that ID is tosh. Literally no serious scientist of researchers take it seriously and you will not find a single respectable scientific journal anywhere that containing any descriptions of it or that give it any serious kinds of consideration at all. Indeed the only publications that do talk about it, are a few random rags and a whole bunch of web pages of a similar standard and editorial quality as the Angelfire page you personally decried so effectively in your previous post. Their augments can often be just as easily and just as effectively dismantled.

As for your last comment I wasn't 'lumping you' or anyone else in with anything. This was aimed at those in our cultures who identify themselves as 'creationists.' If you don't identify yourself (or if anyone else doesn't) as a creationist then this isn't aimed at you - and you have no cause to take issue in this way at all.

This was more about the kind of disinformation that these kind of people commonly propagate - and also about providing readers with answers, when as may occasionally happen in various debates of this nature, they are confronted by these kinds of questions.

It is intended to show that there are answers to nearly all these questions providing (perhaps unlike you) you are prepared to make the effort to look for them.

GJ

Edited December 10, 2005 by raid517

[Chad]

Raid...I suggest you try to prove your point WITHOUT insulting the opposing viewpoint. If all you are going to do is grandstand and knock religion, you can go elsewhere.

[raid517]

Sorry, I thought that is what I was doing. And it wasn't religion I was knocking - it was the specifically disinformation that sites like this commonly attempt to spread.

There is no reason at all for anyone to be offended. I purely intended to answer these questions and to stimulate debate - hopefully with those who do directly identify themselves with this particular philosophy.

I do not think there is any harm at all in providing real answers to questions of this nature.

However as I said, I trust no one did misidentify themselves, or my intentions - and if they did then I am sorry. This was not 'aimed' at anyone in particular. It was as I said an attempt to provide answers to these kinds of questions when for when readers do encounter similar debates in the future.

They are not as many would have you believe, unanswerable questions at all.

GJ

Edited December 10, 2005 by raid517

[Chad]

It's not the subject matter, it's this post https://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?show...ost&p=586904867 going off on the Catholic church and religion in general.

[raid517]

Sorry as I said I did apologise if anyone took offence - but as I said I have also had personal experience of the Catholic Church and it did impact on my life in a very real way. And I don't think painting it as any more or any less preferable to any other branch of Christianity - or placing it above reproach is any more fair or accurate than anyone else's opposing perspective. I think criticism of the Catholic church is extremely valid - as it is exactly this kind of criticism that has moved the Church on towards accepting certain realities that it previously was often happy to persecute people quite horribly in the past for pursuing.

The only way I can see any real offence in this is if you feel that the Church (and religious misinformation in general) should never be criticised. And that is a very difficult thing to accept.

But as I said, if anyone took personal offence (although I have not sworn, or cursed, or used derogatory or racist terminology or anything of this nature) then that was not my intention.

Best regards,

GJ

Edited December 10, 2005 by raid517

[Hum]

:happy: Creationism is partly true -- the Universe was intelligently designed and 'created'. However, it was not by one central Being at a particular 'location' in Space. And the physical Laws present Earth science understands and accepts as true, do not apply everywhere in the Universe. There are far more than the mere physical objects observable.

Carbon dating is just another of Science's fanciful theorys that really 'proves' nothing. What objects were tested 10,000 years ago, then retested today ? And what effects might radiations have had on various tested objects ? What if the object was frozen, or at the bottom of the ocean ? It's really no more certain than any Religious ideas.

God gets a good chuckle out of Scientific theories. ;)

[Whiffle]

Seeing as this thread has nothing to do with science, and keeping my sig line in mind, I am done with it.

Edited December 12, 2005 by Whiffle

[OPaul]

instead of thousands of years ago like the bible says

Where does the bible say that?

[vincent]

:happy: Creationism is partly true -- the Universe was intelligently designed and 'created'. However, it was not by one central Being at a particular 'location' in Space. And the physical Laws present Earth science understands and accepts as true, do not apply everywhere in the Universe. There are far more than the mere physical objects observable.

Carbon dating is just another of Science's fanciful theorys that really 'proves' nothing. What objects were tested 10,000 years ago, then retested today ? And what effects might radiations have had on various tested objects ? What if the object was frozen, or at the bottom of the ocean ? It's really no more certain than any Religious ideas.

God gets a good chuckle out of Scientific theories. ;)

Please Hum, don't go there what you say makes absolutely no sense.

[neowin_hipster]

Let's try it this way:

If universe was intelligently designed by "specifying the laws of physics" then what we've done is created a set of axioms. Everything after is built on top of that. Maybe it just works out that all of this exists the way it is because the axioms were designed just right!

Now consider this, everything derived from the fundamentals can be explained using science. This includes evolution, and well everything!

But if god put a lot more helping hand in after setting the ground rules then it must be creationism we're talking about here.

So how is ID a science and not just religious bantering.

[raid517]

Seeing as this thread has nothing to do with science, and keeping my sig line in mind, I am done with it.

It did have a lot to do with science, until you started waffling on about your particular branch of religion and how much more attractive it was than any other branch. (Possibly you never intended this, but I don't really see why there was any need to mention it at all).

As for Hum, I think what you are suggesting is beyond reason. The idea that the laws of nature are different in different parts of the Universe offends everything we know and that is commonly taught about science, not just at University or advanced levels, but right from day one when we first enter a science class as children. I think the only thing worth 'chuckling' about here (although it is really quite sad) is how little a lot of very religious people (like you) really understand about science - and yet who still feel sufficiently qualified somehow to declare it to be false.

How much more of a demonstration must there be of this, when even after conclusive evidence of the validity of the C14 dating technique (even though it is limited in it's usefulness to about 50,000 or so) is shown, you still continue to dispute its conclusions and choose instead to just completely ignore the significance of all of the answers that were given?

But this is where I think the root of the problem is. Maybe the bottom line is that not everyone understands - or is capable of understanding science? So no matter what answers you give them it will equate to nothing more than the intellectual equivalent of p*ssing in the wind? I cannot recall the number of times I have had conversations with supporters of creationism or ID (since they are the same thing) and have asked them to explain what they thought evolution was to me, only to be shocked at how utterly wrong and distorted their understanding of this particular topic was.

Ultimately though, I think the only real thing you can do is to do (as I have tried here) is to lay out the answers for everyone to see - and hope that they are suitably interested and suitably open minded enough to attempt to pursue them further for themselves.

GJ

Edited December 12, 2005 by raid517

[vincent]

But this is where I think the root of the problem is. Maybe the bottom line is that not everyone understands - or is capable of understanding science? So no matter what answers you give them it will equate to nothing more than the intellectual equivalent of p*ssing in the wind? I cannot recall the number of times I have had conversations with supporters of creationism or ID (since they are the same thing) and have asked them to explain what they thought evolution was to me, only to be shocked at how utterly wrong and distorted their understanding of this particular topic was.

Ultimately though, I think the only real thing you can do is to do (as I have tried here) is to lay out the answers for everyone to see - and hope that they are suitably interested and suitably open minded enough to attempt to pursue them further for themselves.

GJ

Even if everything about evolution as we know, is layed out in front of them, they will still simply imply a "creator" was the cause of it. This mindset i shake my head at, and regard it as ignorance in it's purest form,

[Boffa Jones Veteran]

Even if everything about evolution as we know, is layed out in front of them, they will still simply imply a "creator" was the cause of it. This mindset i shake my head at, and regard it as ignorance in it's purest form,

I find the people who live by either absolute extremely ignorant.

But to me what is even worse when someone from one absolute mocks the ideas/views of the other, well worse and entertaining.

[vincent]

I find the people who live by either absolute extremely ignorant.

But to me what is even worse when someone from one absolute mocks the ideas/views of the other, well worse and entertaining.

I think creationism can be a good philosophical thing, but to absolutley believe that an actual being/entity created life on Earth is just proposterous, imo. All the data that science has just debunks that claim.

[raid517]

I find the people who live by either absolute extremely ignorant.

But to me what is even worse when someone from one absolute mocks the ideas/views of the other, well worse and entertaining.

Well good, that just means we are all (in your eyes) equally ignorant. So perhaps we can all just get along with ignoring each other?

There is no halfway house between creationism and evolution. That is called creative design - which by definition and via a few very simple arguments can quickly be exposed to be nothing more than another form of creationism.

If you are saying there are people who live exclusively by either to the extent of wishing to drown all other voices out - then yes I can agree with you, those people are ignorant.

But I think you will find that there are very few, if any supporters of evolution who would do this. After all as a very ardent supporter of evolution myself, I would never wish to forbid anyone to talk about religion, or to learn about it, or to practise it if they saw fit. While on the other hand, many religious types have tried to do exactly this in their opposition to the teaching of evolution.

The only thing I would wish to do - and I feel it is something that is not being done nearly well enough, given the general populations apparently very poor understanding of the subject, would be to to expend much more resources laying out the case for evolution and explaining the facts as we understand them. The only thing I really desire more than anything else is that people are given access to alternative answers, so that they can know that there are explanations to the vast majority of their questions, beyond simply that 'God did it!.' If people aren't armed with the facts, then of course they might be inclined to go with the only other explanation they might have. Religion for me is just the way most lay people fill in the blanks in their understanding of the nature of the world and the Universe that surrounds them. It may not be a very good way, but when you don't have access to the facts what else can these folks be expected to do?

GJ